10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Discuss the comic here!
Post Reply
User avatar
Master TMO
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 142

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Master TMO » Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:38 am

Mostly irrelevant except as a possible point of interest, but I'm building a random NPC builder, and the way it determines is by the random personality traits. Here's the traits that define good vs evil:
Calm vs Wrath
Charity vs Greed
Compassion vs Indifference
Humility vs Pride
Kindness vs Cruelty
Mercy vs Mercilessness
Peaceful vs Violent
Selflessness vs Selfishness
Tolerance vs Prejudice
Trust vs Mistrust

Obviously, those are all fairly vague, but they will hopefully give me a good idea of the NPCs personality. And typically, just having one of them skewed isn't enough to push someone over into Evil or Good (although it is possible if the others are all evenly balanced). It normally takes several of them pushing the character one way or the other. I think it's a reasonably approximation (although extremely simplified) of real personalities. We all have different traits and drives, and what constitutes where Evil begins is rather vague and fluid and dependent on current society norms.

User avatar
Jochi
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 120

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Jochi » Mon Aug 26, 2013 2:29 pm

sunphoenix wrote: I'll leave it at that... because I know the majority of posters here are atheists, but I put no belief nor pay any gratitude to the postulation that amoral men 'somehow' preserved mankind from blowing themselves to hell... over "one heartbreaking day."
I don't think willpell considers himself, or those that run the world, amoral, or as he's likely say, anethical, if that's a word. He feels he is governed by reason over emotion. And I disagree that that makes him a psychopath (although I think he intended to say sociopath, which he also does not likely qualify for).
Emotions, positive and negative, have to be governed by reason. I know. I've lived my whole life with a locked-down temper that, left unchecked, would be criminal.
But I would kill without hesitation to protect those I love. I would not 'condemn an innocent man' for them, because that would adversely affect THEIR conscience.

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by willpell » Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:29 pm

Jochi wrote:I don't think willpell considers himself, or those that run the world, amoral, or as he's likely say, anethical, if that's a word.
The distinction between morals and ethics is open to interpretation, but in general I consider that choices of proper behavior are best founded on a sort of abstract postulate of "would I like it if someone did this to me?", and an effort to "not be that guy" because it would reflect poorly upon me. I want to live in a better world, for purely selfish reasons, and so I make an effort not to behave like a complete ass, even if I can get away with it, because I know exactly how I feel when someone does something assish to me, and I can't do anything to stop them.
He feels he is governed by reason over emotion.
Pretty close. I would say "sentimentality" rather than "emotion", as a reasonable person includes the latter in their determinations of what reason should consist of; they know other people aren't robots and can't be expected to act solely on the basis of logic (besides which, life would be less fun if that were true). But there's a difference between being emotional and being completely lacking in common sense or pragmatism. The latter tends to be what I mean by "sentimentality"; it's when you insist on doing something for absolutely no sensible purpose, not even self-gratification. Some people justify such behaviors through religion, superstition, or compulsions born of mental illness, while others say things like "it's the principle of the thing", but in all cases, it's a case of them having no real good reason for what they do, and insisting that their not-good reasons must be sufficient, just because they're theirs (or their religion's, or their cultural heritage's, or their family tradition's, all of which are just ways of extending that individual selfishness to a group of like-minded individuals, who close ranks against anyone who doesn't drink their particular flavor of Kool-Aid).
And I disagree that that makes him a psychopath (although I think he intended to say sociopath, which he also does not likely qualify for).
As far as I am aware, the terms "psychopathy" and "sociopathy" are completely interchangeable.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
Sushulana
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 23

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Sushulana » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:41 pm

Cold Burn wrote:
Alright, I'm going to try and help clear things up. you see there is a fundamental problem with the word love- namely how we connect it to romance. You see love and romance share a relationship not totally dissimilar to the relationship between lies and falsehoods. if a person enters into a conversation fully intending to deceive the other participants but is in the possession of incorrect information and as such accidentally relays accurate information this individual would still be lying- even though he told the truth! Love has received similar treatment, though on a scale so grand that rational people can begin to doubt it's existence. Love and sex, while often corresponding are unrelated. Love, or at least what I refer to as love, is what I feel towards those people I value more anyone else- those I would kill for, die for, steal for or condemn an innocent man to die for. In short love refers to the people we think are worth more than everyone else. Do people typically love their spouses? of course human instinct says to value them- is this value inherently different from the bound between siblings? not really. I mean sure there are several things that are expected in a relationship between lovers that would, frankly be unhealthy between siblings but it doesn't mean I care about them less.

Also, i have to ask... where those last two sentences sarcastic or serious?[/quote]

The entire post was every bit as sarcastic as the one that triggered it!

User avatar
Sushulana
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 23

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Sushulana » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:46 pm

willpell wrote:I am of the currently-unpopular opinion that free speech is more important than unbrused egos and unhurt feewings. (I was tempted to invoke the concept of "butthurt" there, but have experienced enough of its literal version to not regard it as a joking matter.)
Oh, good one, I'm glad I didn't take you seriously and get truly nasty.

But, honestly, is the PC gang out of their Collective minds? I would have thought reacting to sarcasm with sarcasm was the right answer. :shrug:

User avatar
Sushulana
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 23

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Sushulana » Tue Aug 27, 2013 11:57 pm

LooksAtYouFunny wrote:
willpell wrote:Just for the record LAYF, I don't mind any of what Sushulana said. As s/he points out, most of the people who run the world think like I do - and you know what, the world's still running. It may be frustrating at times; certainly I've often condemned the system. But the bottom line is, we know it works. Nobody pressed the button during the Cold War, whereas I firmly believe that if someone with a more romantic and maudlin attitude had been running the show, all it would have taken is one heartbreaking day for them to blast half the planet into oblivion along with their feelings.

I'm glad you do not feel insulted, that does make it lass of an "urgent" problem, but that said, s/he still resolved to name calling and labeling, witch is not allowed or accepted, so the point still stands, but thank you for assuring that you are not hurt.

Best regards -LAYF-
Well, thanks for no banning me outright without a hearing, anyway.
There are a ton of sites out there that would do that at the drop of a hat. Nice to see that this ain't one of them.

I'll be leaving sarcasm out of my posts from now on, starting with this;

The world is not static, it is dynamic and ever-evolving.
The society we live in is what me make it, every day, by both what we do by reflex and the conscious decisions we make.
-signing off.

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by willpell » Wed Aug 28, 2013 4:52 am

Sushulana wrote:Well, thanks for no banning me outright without a hearing, anyway.
There are a ton of sites out there that would do that at the drop of a hat. Nice to see that this ain't one of them.
Agreed. These folks are pretty chill, and that's refreshing.
I'll be leaving sarcasm out of my posts from now on, starting with this;
Probably for the best. I think sarcasm has too much destructive potential in this day and age and ought not to be used, except in controlled situations.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

warrl
Of Few Words
Posts: 69

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by warrl » Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:26 pm

I'll be leaving sarcasm out of my posts from now on, starting with this;
The problem is that a lot of the non-verbal clues that a person is being sarcastic are missing from online posts. (Not that everyone reliably caught those clues in face-to-face speech...)

This is why the </sarcasm> faux-XML tag was invented.
My blog: Alien America - amusing incidents and creative misinterpretations

nitwit
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 33

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by nitwit » Wed Aug 28, 2013 6:52 pm

Master TMO wrote:Mostly irrelevant except as a possible point of interest, but I'm building a random NPC builder, and the way it determines is by the random personality traits. Here's the traits that define good vs evil:
Calm vs Wrath
Charity vs Greed
Compassion vs Indifference
Humility vs Pride
Kindness vs Cruelty
Mercy vs Mercilessness
Peaceful vs Violent
Selflessness vs Selfishness
Tolerance vs Prejudice
Trust vs Mistrust

Obviously, those are all fairly vague, but they will hopefully give me a good idea of the NPCs personality. And typically, just having one of them skewed isn't enough to push someone over into Evil or Good (although it is possible if the others are all evenly balanced). It normally takes several of them pushing the character one way or the other. I think it's a reasonably approximation (although extremely simplified) of real personalities. We all have different traits and drives, and what constitutes where Evil begins is rather vague and fluid and dependent on current society norms.
interesting post, if i may comment
Calm vs Wrath strikes me as inappropriate distinction between good and evil, and argueably, shouldn't it be Calm vs Excitable?(or something like that) isn't, in your above list, Peaceful vs Violent the same thing as Calm vs Wrath?
i'm not sure i see a distinction between charity vs greed and selflessness vs selfishness, unless its the severity
Some these seem more like a middle or neutral ground. kindness to indifference to cruelty as indifference really isn't evil or the opposite of kindness.

just a pointless observation. No attempt to define morality and alignment will every be perfect, and you are to be commended fo the effort.

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by willpell » Wed Aug 28, 2013 10:19 pm

nitwit wrote: interesting post, if i may comment
Calm vs Wrath strikes me as inappropriate distinction between good and evil, and argueably, shouldn't it be Calm vs Excitable?(or something like that) isn't, in your above list, Peaceful vs Violent the same thing as Calm vs Wrath?
Indeed, many villains are perfectly calm, not even noticing as their war machine grinds an entire nation to dust, because they survey the entire things via reports from their field generals while relaxing back at their hacienda or in their multinational boardroom. Not that Peaceful vs. Violent is 100% predictive either; drugging the entire population into a permanent opium stupor would be very peaceful, but hardly benevolent.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
Master TMO
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 142

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Master TMO » Thu Aug 29, 2013 6:26 am

I include both sides typically since the words taken singly can have multiple meanings. In this case, Calm vs Wrath is covering their anger. There are a bunch of the words that could quite easily have been swapped around. Sloth, lethargy, laziness, are all in there on different pairs, and basically just mean 'the opposite of the other trait'. Peaceful vs Violent is the person's willingness to use or embrace violence. They don't have to be angry to be violent, or vice versa. I also have traits for Law vs Chaos, and some others (45 pairs total, including the two I just added yesterday).

The words used are hardly perfect, unfortunately. But they're the best I've got so far. It's still in the refinement stage, so hopefully it will get better with time and use.

User avatar
willpell
Banned
Posts: 2085
Contact:

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by willpell » Thu Aug 29, 2013 10:32 am

I approve of such projects; just keep in mind that philosophers have been working on this stuff for a long time. The recent advent of the Internet makes it more probable that the age-old questions can be finally solved, but not MUCH more.
You either die Chaotic, or you live long enough to see yourself become Lawful.
Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
My long-neglected blog.

User avatar
Master TMO
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 142

Re: 10 August 2013, cakes and backrubs

Post by Master TMO » Thu Aug 29, 2013 11:43 am

willpell wrote:I approve of such projects; just keep in mind that philosophers have been working on this stuff for a long time. The recent advent of the Internet makes it more probable that the age-old questions can be finally solved, but not MUCH more.
Hah! I'm not looking for solutions to age-old questions - I'm looking for randomized NPC personalities. I don't do so well at improv, so having something to do it for me and give me the results will hopefully be useful. :thumbsup:

Post Reply